In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.
The PEIS covers six commercial wind energy leases off the shores of New Jersey and New York, totaling over 488,000 acres. While its primary focus is to outline measures to “avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor” impacts, the fact that BOEM is even considering these measures implies a long-overdue acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential to harm marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The language in the document hints that these developments are not entirely benign, despite being repeatedly framed as environmentally friendly solutions to the climate crisis.
Impacts Revealed
While BOEM insists that the PEIS is “programmatic” and not the final say on the matter, the document does provide insight into some of the broader consequences of wind energy development. The PEIS details potential adverse impacts across various categories:
Biological Impacts: Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and fish could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement, and changes in migration patterns. Even bats, which are not typically associated with offshore environments, could be affected.
Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts: The potential effects on water and air quality, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and scenic resources are all outlined. These sections make it clear that local economies and communities reliant on the ocean could experience significant disruptions.
Mitigation Measures are Not Enough: Although the report outlines numerous Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Monitoring (AMMM) measures, it also acknowledges that some impacts are “unavoidable”.
A Major Shift in Tone
The PEIS goes further by recognizing the “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” This bureaucratic phrase translates to the permanent alteration of ecosystems and loss of natural resources due to wind farm construction. It is a striking concession from an agency typically focused on facilitating development.
For years, opponents of offshore wind have argued that the push for rapid renewable energy development has overlooked the consequences for marine life and coastal communities. BOEM’s new PEIS seems to suggest that these concerns may have been valid all along.
Why This Matters
The document comes amid growing criticism of how offshore wind projects are assessed and approved. Many argue that the rapid pace of development is being prioritized over thorough environmental review. With this PEIS, BOEM may be signaling a more cautious approach, perhaps influenced by increasing legal challenges, public backlash, and even emerging scientific research indicating that wind turbines are not as harmless as once believed.
Moreover, the timing of this document is significant. The Biden Administration aims to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 as part of a broader strategy to combat climate change. However, this goal seems increasingly at odds with the realities outlined in the PEIS—realities that indicate a more nuanced balance must be struck between renewable energy expansion and marine conservation.
The BOEM’s PEIS could be seen as a long-awaited admission that the rush for offshore wind might be causing harm. While the document falls short of halting development, it sets the stage for more rigorous scrutiny of future projects. Environmentalists, coastal communities, and fishermen who have long voiced concerns can now point to the PEIS as evidence that their voices are finally being heard.
BOEM’s acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential downsides is not just a bureaucratic shift—it’s a chance to reconsider how we approach renewable energy development. Balancing climate goals with the protection of marine environments will be crucial, and this PEIS could be the first step in that direction.

The minor little problem is that as elements of a grid, wind turbines in general do not work worth bupkis. Add in environmental damage, and they are about the worst choice for power supplies.
An admission of a “mishap side effect” that had become so big it could no longer be denied, even by the brainless dumb asses at BOEM
THE TRUMP TEAM WILL DEAL WITH THEM NEXT YEAR!!
This appears to be very good news but we can’t sit on our backside and hope for the best. We need to start pushing back twice as hard. Now is the time.
Backsides. I have mine, you have yours, they aren’t one backside (thankfully).
Simpler translation of the new BOEM PEIS:
’Trump is coming, and he’s bringing hell with him.’
H/t the classic movie Tombstone and its portrayal of Wyatt Earp.
Is the percent of bird, bat and whale deaths caused by wind “Turbines” and solar farms exaggerated? Is the Low frequency sound from the “Turbines” really an issue?
Any port in a storm, and if the forgoing is the straw that breaks the camel’s back well then maybe I’m all for it. I know I’ve seen that video of a raptor (eagle?) being whacked by a windmill over and over again. I sort of wonder how much of that actually goes on.
Steve, I have good numbers for concentrating solar and wind.
There are so many birds fried by Ivanpah that they call them streamers. The birds see the mirrors, think they are reflecting water, and bam.
There are so many raptors killed by wind turbines in California that they had to issue special exceptions for golden and bald eagles. Translation, Eagle Pass has no more eagles.
There should be videos of all of that. I don’t see them. Maybe I just don’t know how to do a prober Google & You Tube search. (-:}
The beauty of offshore wind is that the killed fliers don’t accumulate at the foot of the tower. Instead, a high concentration of sharks is reported.
First chuckle of my day. At 5:15 CDT looks like I haven’t had much fun so far today.
No corpse, hence no crime !
About three years ago on a return flight to NY, we sat next to a biologist on a consulting trip. His work involved promoting reductions of lead shot (from hunting) by substituting steel shot, specifically for (onshore) wind developers in NY State to employ this measure as an offset for expected raptor mortality. In other words, by agreeing to pay for programs to reduce the raptor mortality from lead shot, the wind developers could show a net neutral impact. I’m not making this up.
In many states (including my farm’s Wisconsin), lead shot for waterfowl has been banned for many years. Steel shot does not have the carry, which is actually good for two reasons.
I am an ardent hunter, and totally supported this change. Caused me to change some shotshell reloading practices.used to be all lead shot. Now, waterfowl hunting shells are all soft steel #4.
Agreed that the change to steel shot should be “totally supported” in any case, which means there never should have been offsets allowed for raptor mortality due to wind turbines.
I worked as a marine biologist from 1967 through 1995, and a little since, in Louisiana in a period when the oil industry was moving offshore. I dealt with these problems a little and my name is on one of the early works on platform fishes. One inquiry I got from California was concern about fish being confused when they moved or tore down their platform. Another from the east coast was for an experimental offshore well where the concern was lights interfering with bird migration. In the Gulf they are probably an aid to such and may have facilitated cattle egrets moving north.
They keep changing names, back then it was the Bureau of Minerals Management in Interior which had all sorts of concerns, whales not being a top priority as I spent many an hour on ships never seeing one but plenty of birds using them maybe as stopovers. However, there was some interest and there was a naval lab that researched it. Current concern is removing the platforms which are now an important vertical habitat. Oil is nasty but highly degradeable and the Gulf of Mexico was long know as a sea of oil, beach asphalt, much accumulating in Texas, important to caulking old wooden vessels. Check this open access about a Mobil platform in the sanctuary.
Childs, J. 1998. Avian diversity and habitat use within the Flower Gardens Banks National Wildlife Sanctuary. Gulf of Mexico Science. 16(2):208-235. https://doi.org/10.18785/goms.1602.10
I don’t research these but there some papers on bird damage. Ran across this one with the usual equations. Rose, S., P. Jaramillo, M. J. Small, and J. Apt., 2012. Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (9) 3247-3252.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.11117691
I worked with a few petroleum engineers and the subject never came up but am sure that they would laugh at a plan to put wind turbines in the Gulf. Only place windy enough is south Texas where they many have been installed on land but no hurricane has hit them yet.
We stopped Dungeness crab fishing again in California for the 6th year because a whale might get tangled in a crab pot tether line.
It is because whales deserve an abundance of caution while they are swimming around. OK
Don’t whales deserve an abundance of caution while constructing offshore wind turbines too?
The hypocrisy of environmentalists is outright laughable. They all have vested interests to achieve too.
Interesting because the five first leases off CA are for floating wind which will create an incredible web of anchor lines in half mile deep water. Each floater needs 6 to 8 anchor lines plus the hot cable carrying the energy and there will be hundreds of floaters in two huge clusters. To meet CA’s target of 25,000 MW requires around 2,000 floaters.
Thanks for putting my original criticism as a related item: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/17/feds-first-multi-site-offshore-wind-eis-is-ridiculous/
It sounds like the final is a big improvement at least in principle. But there is no suggestion of not building any of the listed projects.
They cannot deny marine mammal harassment and migration changes given that the authorized harassments for building these projects will number in the hundreds of thousands. But these admissions might be useful if Trump wins and seeks to shut down offshore wind, which will not be easy. After all the leaseholders bought the right to develop the lease areas. Maybe they are softening in hopes of not being fired.
If Biden could cancel a 95% completed Keystone XL pipeline [that had all the permits]
why couldn’t Trump cancel any wind project? Oh, I forgot. The mainstream media will go
apoplecticand mislead the puplic on everything he says or does.
Here’s to hoping to see those sort of fireworks next January 2025.
He can easily cancel one lease project but there are now about 30 leases with 8 more coming on the 29th Oct.
DW, as said before, this change is likely because BOEM knows Trump will win on Nov 5, and
‘ Trump is coming, and bringing hell with him.’
Norway does not need more electricity production as we are a net exporter of both electricity and oil and gas. Still, these woke politicians decided to destroy parts of Norway’s pristine nature. The wind farms are the biggest environmental disaster ever in our country!
Further evidence there is no such thing as “ clean energy” each form of energy generation comes with trade offs in terms of effects on the environment , cost, etc.
Progressive activists are totally lacking, not just in common sense, but in any pretense of nuance. They have the “I want it all and I want it now!” mindset of the typical two-year-old. Even the best ideas have their limits, but no discussion of limits can be tolerated by those who demand the restructuring of society, and the vultures who seek to profit from their excesses.
It is good to see that sober consideration may win out in the long run, but the carcasses strewn behind will still be a tragedy.
Veruca
You don’t say Sherlock. What a surprise.